American Association of State Colleges and Universities

A Higher Education Policy Brief • April 2012

Changing Dynamicsin State Oversight

of For-Profit Colleges

by Thomas L. HarnischPolicy Analyst

Context

Growing student enrollment, rapid increases in federal

and state financial aid, and alarming amounts of

student borrowing over the last decade at for-profit

colleges have led to a new round of scrutiny over

these institutions’ practices, policies and products.

Investigations by state and federal authorities and

lawsuits filed over the last two years have highlighted

numerous troubling instances of fraud, abuse and

unsatisfactory student outcomes at some for-profit

colleges. While many for-profit colleges make

important contributions to students and communities,

some “education businesses” have left students

deep in debt without meaningful employment

opportunities. As a result, members of Congress, the

Obama Administration, state-level officials and higher

education leaders continue to weigh policy measures

seeking to improve student outcomes and crack

down on unethical and illegal conduct in the for-profit

college industry.

While many policy proposals are being considered,

more fundamental concerns remain over the efficacy

of the shared regulatory arrangement between states,

accrediting bodies and the federal government as it

pertains to for-profit college oversight. Critics of the

current system believe the regulatory “triad” lacks

an appropriate distribution of responsibilities and

sufficient capacity to adequately protect students

from illicit practices, ensure institutional integrity

and sufficiently advance students’ educational and

economic well-being. With an estimated 2.4 million

students enrolled at for-profit colleges1 and billions

invested in federal and state student financial aid,

regulatory lapses can have significant, long-term

repercussions not only for students attending these

colleges, but for employers seeking skilled workers,

taxpayers financing student financial aid programs,

and ethical for-profit colleges competing in the

postsecondary education marketplace as well.

The states’ role within the regulatory triumvirate is

being revisited. State governments arguably have

the strongest position of the three entities, with

broad legal authority, public accountability and

close proximity to many campuses. Historically,

state governments have had central oversight

responsibilities, including authorizing institutions to

legally operate and providing consumer protection.

Further, states are charged with overseeing all

postsecondary institutions operating within their

borders, including a notable number of unaccredited

colleges.

2 / April 2012 • AASCU Policy Matters

This paper focuses on the state role in regulatory

oversight of for-profit colleges. It describes the

rapid rise of the for-profit college industry, outlines

troubling allegations of consumer fraud and abuse,

highlights a pattern of disconcerting student

outcomes, revisits the state’s oversight function and

discusses national and state efforts to strengthen

state oversight of for-profit colleges.

Observations

For-profit colleges have long been part of U.S.

postsecondary education, but have rapidly grown

and transformed to include a critical mass of college

students.

For-profit colleges are not new to American

postsecondary education. For over two centuries,

mostly small- and medium-sized education

businesses have offered a range of job training,

occupational certification and place-based, career-

oriented education programs. Many for-profit

colleges have a history of reaching out to students

that may not have been well-served by traditional

postsecondary education, including older, minority

and low-income students.2 For-profit colleges’ often

nimble organizational structure has allowed quick

adjustments to changing labor market conditions and

programs aligned to individual and employer needs.3

The advent of online instructional delivery has allowed

the for-profit college industry to transform to include

a number of large, primarily online, corporate entities

spanning multiple states. Online learning provided

by large for-profit colleges fueled the industry’s

growth in the last decade. Nearly 90 percent of the

for-profit industry’s growth from 2000-2009 can be

attributed to for-profit chains and primarily online

establishments.4 By 2008-09, the 15 largest for-profit

college companies enrolled nearly 60 percent of the

sector’s students.5

Online learning, as well as growing demand for

postsecondary education, are two factors that have

fueled rapid student enrollment increases at for-

profit colleges. Total enrollment at Title IV-eligible

institutions jumped from 1.48 million in fall 2007 6

to 2.42 million in fall 2010,7 an increase of nearly 64

percent. Since fall 2000, enrollment at for-profit

colleges has increased 260 percent.8 For-profit

college enrollment now comprises 11.2 percent of

total postsecondary education enrollment at Title

IV-eligible institutions.9 The industry also enrolls

an estimated 670,000 students at unaccredited

institutions that are not eligible for federal Title IV

funding and are not included in the U.S. Department

of Education’s enrollment count.10

Higher enrollment counts have led to a greater

share of degrees being conferred by for-profit

colleges. In 2008-09, for-profit colleges issued five

percent of all bachelor’s degrees, 18 percent of all

associate degrees, 42 percent of all certificates and

10 percent of all master’s degrees.11 These degrees

and certificates include a wide variety of programs,

but for-profit colleges generally focus on training

students for careers in high-growth labor market

sectors. According to Harvard professors David

Deming, Claudia Goldin and Lawrence Katz, for-

profit colleges now confer one in three associate

degrees in business, management and marketing;

over 50 percent in computer and information science;

and nearly a quarter of all associate degrees in the

health professions. For-profit colleges often focus on

communications, business, and personal and culinary

service programs at the bachelor’s degree level.12

Despite the industry’s consolidation, online growth

and program focus, it remains diverse in its size, range

of program offerings and methods of instructional

delivery. Smaller for-profit colleges can enroll as

little as a few dozen students, while the University

of Phoenix’s Online Campus enrolled an estimated

321,000 full-time students in their undergraduate

and graduate programs in Fall 2010.13 Some for-profit

colleges offer week-long, non-degree programs, while

others enroll students for multi-year, terminal degree

programs. For-profit colleges may offer exclusively

online courses, classroom delivery or blended course

formats.

3 / April 2012 • AASCU Policy Matters

Federal and state investigations, as well as media

scrutiny, has revealed fraud and abuse in the for-

profit college industry.

Student and employee allegations of impropriety

at some for-profit college companies, coupled with

the industry’s phenomenal growth over the last

two decades, have resulted in renewed scrutiny of

their business practices and sustained longstanding

fears of systemic consumer fraud and abuse. Some

have accused for-profit college companies, given

their huge influx of revenues from federal student

aid programs, of enriching themselves rather than

providing enriching academic experiences to

students. Critics have argued that the profit-seeking

motive has, in many instances, taken precedent

over academic and student success priorities,

as well as admissions practices that may involve

misrepresentation, false information and high-

pressure sales tactics.14

Student recruitment practices have been at the

forefront of this criticism. Some for-profit college

companies have been accused of committing

consumer fraud and abuse. Fraud is considered

purposeful consumer deception, while abuse includes

deception, injustice and unscrupulous behavior

but is not necessarily deliberate. This includes false

expectations, not offering promised or implied

educational opportunities and failing to provide

appropriate systems for hearing and redressing

valid student grievances.15 Recent federal and state

investigations and lawsuits, as well as media inquiries,

have revealed numerous instances of fraud and abuse

at for-profit college companies. It is unclear whether

these investigations uncovered isolated incidents

of impropriety or widespread unethical and illegal

activity.

Federal Investigations and Lawsuits. Senator Tom

Harkin (D-IA), chair of the Senate Committee on

Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP), has

led a series of high-profile hearings and discussions

highlighting unethical practices in the for-profit

college industry. Testimony from Harkin’s hearings

uncovered a wide array of industry abuses, including

misleading claims over their programs’ credentials

being accepted by employers, providing false job

placement numbers to prospective students, and

deceptive and fraudulent sales tactics, including

misinformation on private student loans.

Senators Harkin and Dick Durbin (D-IL) have also

given attention to for-profit colleges’ participation in

veterans’ tuition assistance programs. Hearings on the

industry’s participation in veterans’ tuition assistance

funds have focused on accusations of predatory

recruiting practices because veterans’ tuition benefits

do not count toward the “90/10” rule, which requires

institutions to receive at least 10 percent of their

funding from non-Title IV financial aid sources. As

for-profit colleges enroll more students participating

in veterans’ tuition assistance programs, they are

able to enroll a greater number of students using

federal financial aid. This has created an incentive for

some for-profit college companies to aggressively

recruit veterans and those eligible for veterans’ tuition

assistance.16

A large share of students who have participated in the

Post 9/11 G.I. Bill veterans’ tuition assistance program

chose to attend a for-profit college, according

to a December 2010 report from the U.S. Senate

HELP Committee. The committee reported that in

the first year of Post 9/11 G.I. Bill implementation,

public colleges (two- and four-year) and for-profit

colleges received similar amounts of Post 9/11 G.I. Bill

funds ($697 million and $640 million, respectively);

however, higher cost of attendance at for-profit

colleges meant the program funded 203,790 students

at public colleges and 76,746 at for-profit colleges.

The report claims that the top for-profit providers of

veterans’ education have poor student outcomes; four

of the top five for-profit colleges receiving the most

Post 9/11 G.I. Bill funding have student loan repayment

rates between 31 and 37 percent.17

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO)

has also looked into the industry’s practices. GAO

released a report in August 2010 citing troubling

instances of fraud and abuse at a sample of 15 for-

profit colleges. According to the report, four of the 15

colleges encouraged undercover applicants to falsify

their Free Application for Federal Student Financial

4 / April 2012 • AASCU Policy Matters

Aid (FAFSA) form, including urging applicants to

not report assets and instructing them to falsify

the number of dependents. GAO reported 13 of the

15 colleges supplied undercover applicants with

deceptive or otherwise questionable information

pertaining to graduation rates, employment prospects

upon graduation or projected earnings. Nine of

the colleges provided deceptive or questionable

information related to program cost and duration,

while 11 denied the undercover applicants access to

their financial aid eligibility or provided questionable

financial advice.18 For-profit industry officials have

called the integrity of this investigation into question.19

GAO amended their report to clarify their findings.

The new federal Consumer Financial Protection

Bureau (CFPB) has expressed concern over the for-

profit college market, including a lack of information

about college choices and some students’ ability to

repay their student loans.20 The new federal agency

has jurisdiction over financial matters and is currently

taking complaints pertaining to private student loans.

CFPB officials have also expressed unease over

for-profit college companies’ recruiting practices of

returning veterans.21

The federal government has taken legal action against

some for-profit college companies. In August 2011,

the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), along with

four states, filed a multi-billion dollar lawsuit against

Education Management Corporation (EDMC), the

nation’s second-largest for-profit college company.22

The complaint claims EDMC paid student recruiters

based solely on the number of students enrolled,

a violation of federal law. DOJ has asked EDMC to

pay back billions in federal student aid funds. EDMC,

however, has defended its recruitment compensation

system and asked for the case to be dismissed.23 The

case remains in federal court.

The federal government has also filed lawsuits

against smaller for-profit colleges. DOJ took action in

February 2012 against American Commercial College

(ACC), a for-profit college chain based in Lubbock,

Texas. DOJ claims the college sought to circumvent

the 90/10 rule by aligning with a Texas bank to have

students apply for private loans from the bank and

then repay the bank at the end of the fiscal year.24 The

case remains open.

State Investigations and Lawsuits. State leaders have

also examined the industry’s practices. Kentucky

Attorney General Jack Conway (D) is currently

leading a multi-state, bipartisan investigation into

for-profit college practices. Thus far, the investigation

has involved student consumer protection concerns

and 22 state attorneys general have joined Conway’s

effort.25 Outside of the multi-state investigation,

California Watch, a non-partisan investigative

reporting website, counted 31 for-profit college

investigations across 11 states in February 2012.26

States have also filed lawsuits against for-profit

colleges. In July 2011, Attorney General Conway

filed a state lawsuit against Daymar College, a for-

profit college based in Owensboro, Kentucky. In the

complaint, Conway claimed Daymar deceived and

misled students about textbooks and financial aid,

steering them into purchasing items from Daymar

at higher prices. The complaint also alleges that

the college enrolled and retained students with

false assurances that their course credits would be

transferable to other institutions; offered programs

that did not fit the standards of its accrediting

organization; and recruited and enrolled students

who did not meet the college’s own admissions

standards.27

Conway has also filed a separate lawsuit against

National College of Kentucky, a for-profit college

chain based in Lexington. In the complaint, Conway

claims National provided false, misleading or

deceptive information to consumers about its job

placement rates. The Kentucky attorney general’s

office alleges that the college advertised significant

higher job placement rates to students than it gave to

its accrediting body. 28

In Illinois, Attorney General Lisa Madigan (D) filed

a lawsuit against for-profit Westwood College in

January 2012, claiming the college made a number

of misrepresentations and false promises about

its criminal justice program. The complaint alleges

Westwood burdened individual students with more

5 / April 2012 • AASCU Policy Matters

than $50,000 in debt with little chance of obtaining

law enforcement employment in Illinois. Westwood’s

criminal justice program is nationally-accredited, but

major law enforcement employers in the Chicago

area, including the Chicago Police Department,

require regionally-accredited degrees. The lawsuit

also alleges Westwood misled students about the

cost of the three-year degree program, which totals

$71,610. By comparison, the College of DuPage, a local

community college, offers a comparable, regionally-

accredited criminal justice degree for $12,672. 29

Westwood College is owned by Alta Colleges, Inc., a

Denver-based for-profit college company.

Media Investigations. Media investigations have also

revealed instances of student consumer fraud and

abuse at for-profit colleges. These include:

• A July 2010 PBS Frontline special highlighting

common industry criticisms, including misleading

recruitment tactics, poor educational programming,

high student loan debts, and programs that do not

lead to meaningful career opportunities.30

• An April 2010 investigation by Bloomberg

Businessweek uncovering for-profit colleges

aggressively recruiting at homeless shelters and

among destitute populations with little or no regard

to their preparation for postsecondary education or

ability to benefit from the program.31

• An October 2010 investigation by WFAA-TV, an

ABC-affiliated television station in Dallas, finding

288 falsified student employment records over

four years at Everest College in Arlington, Texas.32

Everest College is owned by Corinthian Colleges, a

publicly-traded, for-profit college corporation based

in Santa Ana, California.

• A separate WFAA investigation in 2010 alleging that

ATI, Inc., a for-profit college chain with campuses in

North Texas, specifically sought out the homeless

and felons for their degree programs, with little

regard to whether they would benefit from the

college’s offerings. The investigation also accused

ATI of inflated job placement numbers. 33 In August

2011, Texas regulators closed 22 of ATI’s programs.34

Concerns are growing over students’ return on

investment, student debt levels and default rates at

some for-profit colleges.

For-profit colleges enroll a large proportion of at-

risk students, including disproportionate numbers of

students from low-income and minority populations.

Yet regardless of the at-risk indicators associated with

any given student population, all educational entities

(public, not-for-profit and for-profit) should be held

accountable for demonstrating that their students

will benefit in the employment marketplace from the

education and training they receive. Further, they

should avoid burdening students with substantial

debt after leaving school without a reasonable ability

to pay it off.

Critics continue to question low graduation,

professional licensure and job placement rates at

some for-profit colleges, arguing that students

are making considerable investments of time and

resources but not receiving economic returns to

match their investment. Taxpayers are also making

substantial investments in postsecondary American

education and deserve programs that help students

acquire skills that lead to gainful employment.

Return on Investment. Recent studies have

explored student outcomes at for-profit colleges,

with mixed results. Deming, Goldin and Katz (2011)

concluded that first-time postsecondary students

attending for-profit colleges, after adjusting for

observable differences with other sectors, had

success in retaining students and helping them

complete certificate and associate’ degree programs,

compared with community colleges. However, for-

profit college students did not fare as well for longer

degree programs, compared with their public and

nonprofit counterparts. For-profit college students

also graduated with considerably more debt, and

experienced greater unemployment and lower

earnings, according to the authors’ research.35

A study by economist Nicholas Turner (2011)

examined the differential earnings of attending a

for-profit college relative to not-for-profit institutions

6 / April 2012 • AASCU Policy Matters

using federal tax data, after adjusting for selectivity

status. The report concluded that the net private

benefit from attending a for-profit college is less than

what is associated with attending a public or private,

not-for-profit college, due to higher education costs

and lower earnings. 36

Economists Stephanie Riegg Cellini and Latika

Chaudhary (2011) compared labor market returns

of students attending private (mostly for-profit)

and public two-year colleges. The authors found

students in both sectors to have similar earnings after

graduation. They concluded that students would

usually be better served to choose a lower-cost

community college over a higher-cost private college

when the two entities offer comparable programs. 37

Debt and Loan Default. Student debt and loan default

remains a concern across American postsecondary

education, yet research reveals the problem to be

particularly acute for students at for-profit colleges.

For-profit college companies generally charge

much higher tuition than their subsidized public

counterparts. According to the College Board’s

Trends in College Pricing 2011, the average published

tuition and fees at for-profit colleges in 2011-12 was

$14,487, compared with the in-state, public two-year

rate of $2,963 and the in-state public four-year rate

of $8,244. The private, not-for-profit tuition and fee

rate was $28,500.38 This is only an average “sticker

price” of tuition charges and does not include other

educational costs and discounts, such as institutional

financial aid.

In comparisons of “net cost of attendance,” which

include tuition, grants and other college-related costs,

for-profit colleges remain more expensive for low-

income students. College Board data indicate that

the net cost of attendance for low-income students

at public two-year institutions was $6,480 in 2007-

08, while the net cost of attendance at in-state

public four-year institutions was $9,030. At for-profit

colleges, the net cost of attendance was $16,510 in

2007-08, comparable to some private, not-for-profit

institutions.39

For-profit colleges’ higher tuition prices has led

to large student debt accumulations and growing

concerns that students will not be able to repay these

debts. According to June 2011 Senate testimony by

Table 1: Distribution of Total Undergraduate Debt by Sector

and Type of Degree or Certificate, 2007-08.

No Debt

Less than

$10,000

$10,000 to

$19,999$20,000 to

$29,999$30,000 to

$39,999$40,000 or

more

Bachelor’s Degree

Public Four-Year 38% 16% 19% 14% 6% 6%Private Nonprofit Four-Year 28% 10% 19% 17% 10% 15%

For-Profit 4% 4% 12% 23% 33% 24%

Associate Degree

Public Two-Year 62% 23% 9% 3% 1% 1%

For-Profit 2% 22% 34% 23% 13% 6%

Certificate

Public Two-Year 70% 21% 7% 1% 1% 0%

For-Profit 10% 46% 34% 8% 2% 1%

Source: National Postsecondary Student Aid Survey 2008, Baum 2011.

7 / April 2012 • AASCU Policy Matters

economist Sandy Baum, a leading scholar of higher

education finance, there are a number of troubling

student debt trends at for-profit colleges. The

following statistics were included in her testimony:

• Among students who received their degrees from

for-profit colleges in 2007-08, 96 percent had debt

with a median amount of $32,700. Two-thirds of

graduates from for-profit colleges had nonfederal

loans, which often carry higher interest rates and do

not have the protection of federal student loans.

• Of those graduating

from for-profit colleges

in 2007-08, 57 percent

of bachelor’s degree

recipients had over

$30,000 in debt. In

contrast, 25 percent of

private, not-for-profit

and 12 percent of public

bachelor’s degree

recipients had borrowed

at this level.

• At the associate degree

level, 42 percent of for-

profit degree recipients

had debt over $20,000.

At public colleges, 5

percent had debt at

this threshold. Over 60

percent of associate

degree recipients at public colleges were debt-free.

• Among independent bachelor’s degree recipients,

the median debt at for-profit colleges was $32,700,

compared with $20,000 at public colleges and

$24,600 at private non-profit colleges. 40

It should be noted that this data does not include

vast numbers of students who do not finish their

degree programs. In her testimony, Baum concluded,

“Institutions that leave students worse off than when

they arrived are the exception at the public and

private, not-for-profit sector. Unfortunately, they

appear to be the norm at for-profit colleges.” 41

Heavy reliance on student loans, coupled with

occupations that often do not generate earnings

sufficient to allow for student loan debt reduction,

have led to high and growing loan default rates

among for-profit college students and graduates. The

latest two-year student loan cohort default rate at for-

profit colleges was over 15 percent at four-year for-

profit colleges, compared with 5.2 percent at public

colleges and 4.5 percent at private, not-for-profit

colleges. 42

At the two-three year institutional category, the

two-year default rate was 14.8 percent at for-profit

colleges, while public and private, not-for-profit

colleges stood near 12 and 10 percent, respectively.

The U.S. Department of Education’s budgeted lifetime

default rate of two-year for-profit colleges was 49

percent, compared with 31 percent at public and

private, not-for-profit two-year colleges.43 Concerns

remain about the viability of a postsecondary

education sector that leaves a substantial share of its

students without ample opportunities to repay their

student loans; in addition, there are concerns about

the associated consequences for students, as well as

the general public.

Source: “Direct Loan and Federal Family Education Loan Programs: Institutional Default

Rate Comparison of FY 2007, 2008, and 2009 Cohort Default Levels,” U.S. Department of

Education, 2012

Table 2: Cohort Student Loan Default Rates, FY 2007-09

0%

3%

6%

9%

12%

15%

FY 2009

FY 2008

FY 2007

For-Pro�tPrivatePublicNational Average

6.7% 7.0%

15.0%

11.6%11.0%

8.8%

7.2%

4.6%

6.0%5.9%

4.0%3.7%

8 / April 2012 • AASCU Policy Matters

Within the regulatory triad, state governments

have key responsibilities for overseeing for-profit

colleges.

An intertwined, three-part regulatory system,

consisting of states, private accrediting bodies

and the federal government exists to close down

fraudulent institutions; identify underperforming

institutions; oversee institutional improvement; assist

in the distribution of student aid funds; and provide

public information.44 The unique three-way power-

sharing structure aims to respect the autonomous

traditions of American postsecondary education,

recognize the state’s preeminent authority and

facilitate college access and success.

Within the triad, the federal government is charged

with ensuring appropriate administration of federal

student aid funds and evaluating institutional

eligibility to participate in those programs.

Accrediting bodies assume responsibility for

reviewing educational quality. States provide all

institutions with the legal authority to operate,

provide consumer protection and may also set

standards for institutional participation in state

student financial aid programs.45 Outside of their

responsibilities within the regulatory triad, states must

also oversee unaccredited colleges and universities.46

Some states, however, do not allow unaccredited

institutions to operate.

State governments remain in a strong, if underutilized,

position within the regulatory framework. The

federal government’s power is restrained by the U.S.

Constitution. Accreditation is a voluntary peer-review

process with no legal enforcement authority and

only one powerful tool—de-accreditation.47 States,

however, have broad legal authority to oversee for-

profit colleges, including key responsibilities, such

as providing institutions a legal right to operate and

student consumer protection. These responsibilities

are approached differently in each state.

Institutional Authorization. For-profit colleges

must be authorized (or licensed) to operate by

their respective states. While some public and non-

profit institutions (particularly older ones) may have

acquired this authority through a state charter, for-

profit colleges go through an authorization process.

Authorization is different than accreditation and

institutions can be authorized but not accredited.

Some states may defer some responsibilities in

the authorization process to accrediting bodies,

but accrediting bodies do not have the power to

authorize institutions.48

Authorization standards vary around the country.

Some states have a simple process that relies in

significant part on accrediting bodies, while others

send state review teams to examine applicants.

Institutions must be authorized in every state in

which they operate in order to participate in federal

student aid programs, as well as have accreditation

from a body recognized by the U.S. Department of

Education.

The state authorization process is complicated by

cross-border distance education programs. Distance

education programs are designed to de-emphasize

the role of place in learning, which conflicts with

place-based state government authorization powers.

Like authorization requirements, states have different

standards to define whether an institution is actually

“operating” within the state. For example, some states

require authorization based on “physical presence”

in the state, while others require authorization for

enrolling students in the state. Further, the definition

of “physical presence” may vary according to state.

Therefore, distance education providers which enroll

students in multiple states may have to go through

many authorization processes.

While some believe state authorization requirements

are antiquated in an era of distance education, others

are concerned about weak state oversight and lax

enforcement of consumer protection laws. In order

to bolster state oversight, the U.S. Department of

Education issued a “state authorization” rule in 2010

requiring institutions to seek authorization in every

state in which they operate. While federal officials

believe this simply reinforces and clarifies current law,

others have concluded the requirement places an

unnecessary regulatory burden on distance education

providers.

9 / April 2012 • AASCU Policy Matters

It should be noted, however, that the challenges of

state authorization and distance learning apply to

all of American postsecondary education, including

public, private, not-for-profit institutions and the

for-profit college industry. Many larger for-profit

college networks have systems in place to navigate

the contours of state authorization laws and

regulatory requirements. Many of the institutions that

have not been in accordance with the Title IV state

authorization requirements are public institutions and

established private, not-for-profit institutions. A large

majority of new applications for state authorization

are not from for-profit colleges, but rather from public

and private, not-for-profit colleges and universities.49

Consumer Protection. Consumer protection is a

shared responsibility within the regulatory triad, with

states generally viewed as having the primary role

in protecting students from fraud and abuse. States’

consumer protection regulations pertaining to for-

profit colleges range from basic safety considerations

to specific educational concerns.50 The range of

consumer protection activities and enforcement vary

from state to state. According to the State Higher

Education Executive Officers (SHEEO), the state-level

consumer protection function may include examining

and/or regulating the following:

• Advertising: Ensuring institutions do not make

promises that are not supported by evidence.

• School Catalog and Enrollment Agreements:

Evaluating program information given to students,

including course and program information, tuition

and fee charges and graduation and job placement

data.

• Personnel Credentials: Examining faculty

qualifications in order to protect students from

untrained personnel or those with fraudelent

credentials.

• Institutional Finances: Monitoring institutional

financial stability, including reviewing tuition refund

policies, audited institutional financial statements,

surety bonds and tuition protection funds.

• Teach Outs: Ascertaining whether campuses have a

plan to allow students to finish their program in the

event of a campus closure.

• Site Visits: Inspecting facilities, curricula, teaching

aids and school records.

• Licensing Exemptions and Exceptions: Reviewing

institutional exemptions from authorization, such as

those allowed through having valid accreditation.

• Consumer Complaints: Investigating student

complaints.51

Establishing and enforcing minimal education

standards are also part of the state’s consumer

protection responsibilities. State regulators are

charged with evaluating whether subject material is

appropriate and students benefit from the program.52

SHEEO has stated that minimal education standards

may include:

• Pre-enrollment Standards: Students must

demonstrate an ability to benefit from the training,

and programs must be appropriate for their level of

preparation and skills.

• Curriculum and Course Content: Examining

program objectives, methods to reach those

objectives and expected student outcomes. This

may include specific information, such as academic

policies and grading methods.

• Outcomes: Reviewing and verifying outcomes data,

including retention, completion and job placement

data.

• Informing Choice: Ensuring students have

information to make informed decisions about

schools, including correct data on program costs,

retention and job placement. 53

State education standards and accreditation. There

are common characteristics to the state’s oversight

function and accreditation, such as ensuring an

environment that can provide quality education

programming. Therefore, some states defer to

10 / April 2012 • AASCU Policy Matters

private accrediting agencies in making qualitative

judgments about programs operating in the state.54

However, outside of their authorizing power, states

have two exclusive responsibilities: protecting the

rights of students throughout the education process

and overseeing state investment in postsecondary

education.55

In a 2004 report, the California Postsecondary

Education Commission (CPEC) compared the

functions and roles of California’s state oversight and

accreditation pertaining to for-profit colleges. CPEC

concluded that state oversight and accreditation

serve fundamentally different purposes, even though

substantial overlap exists between the two processes.

CPEC recommended that states should not view

accreditation as an alternative or substitution for the

adoption and enforcement of state standards, but did

suggest streamlining state policies and coordinating

the state’s efforts with those of accrediting bodies.56

According to CPEC, there are specific differences

between California’s state oversight function and

the role of accrediting bodies. State oversight (in

California) is an external review of required minimal

education standards with a particular focus on

protecting consumers. The state function maintains

legal authority to permit institutions to operate in

the state and those that do not meet the required

standards can be denied permission to operate.

Accreditation, meanwhile, remains focused on

institutional quality but not on consumer issues.

It is a self-review process within the context of a

college’s mission and goals, and each institution

and accrediting body may have different standards.

Accrediting institutions have no legal authority for

authorizing institutions.

Finally, another reason to maintain the state’s

oversight presence involves concerns over

“accreditation shopping.” This involves for-profit

college companies purchasing accredited private, not-

for-profit colleges and transforming the institutions to

reflect the investor’s goals. In a matter of a few years,

small, regionally-accredited nonprofit colleges with

a few thousand students can convert into for-profit

enterprises with tens of thousands of students.

There are concerns over the efficacy of the state’s

oversight role of for-profit colleges.

Recent scandals at for-profit colleges have led some

to question the effectiveness of state regulatory

systems. While diploma mills (institutions acting

without authorization to grant degrees) and outright

consumer fraud remain worrisome, there are more

fundamental concerns over subpar, sometimes

predatory, for-profit colleges that have made it

through the regulatory system. Critics have stated

that the regulatory triad is procedurally difficult

to navigate but has structural flaws that allow

questionable institutions to get through and be

eligible for federal student aid.57 The state oversight

function has been accused of lax oversight, few

incentives, inadequate resources and possible

conflicts of interests. Taken together, these forces can

hinder the state’s oversight function.

Lax Oversight. Two recent state audits have found

shortcomings in state agencies responsible for for-

profit college oversight. A 2011 audit of the Kentucky

Proprietary Education Board, which oversees two-

year and non-degree state proprietary institutions,

found the board provided inadequate oversight,

lacked a clear understanding of its role and did not

keep proper records.58 A state audit in Florida during

the same period found that its regulatory body, the

Florida Commission for Independent Education, was

slow to respond to consumer complaints and lax

about its finances.59

California has also had state oversight challenges.

In July 2008, a state law providing for-profit college

oversight expired as lawmakers debated the best

regulatory approach. This essentially left the state

without a regulatory agency and led to a number of

degree mills.60 Oversight was restored in October

2009, but this episode has been the impetus for

national reform efforts.

Few Incentives. State policymakers often have little

incentive to invest in for-profit college oversight

because little of their own resources are at stake.

For-profit colleges are generally financed through

federal student financial aid, with state student

11 / April 2012 • AASCU Policy Matters

aid only comprising a small fraction of a state’s

total commitment to postsecondary education.

For example, in 2009-10, 31 states extended need-

based financial aid to students attending for-profit

colleges. But the total amount constituted less than

five percent of all state need-based grant monies

nationwide.61 With many priorities needing attention

during difficult budget cycles, state investment in

student aid directed at students attending for-profit

colleges is not typically a top policy and funding

priority.

Inadequate Resources. The state regulatory agencies

that oversee this industry are usually funded by a

mix of fees imposed on for-profit colleges and state

appropriations. However, these agencies are often

underfunded, understaffed and do not have enough

personnel in key areas, such as auditing and law. This

can lead to regulatory gaps and subsequent fraud and

abuse at for-profit colleges.

Unfortunately, this situation is not improving. A

1991 SHEEO study concluded that most states it

reviewed had inadequate staff for enforcing laws and

regulations involving for-profit colleges.62 Twenty

years later, the National Consumer Law Center

concluded that only a few states have devoted

sufficient resources to match the challenges posed by

the industry’s growth.63 For example, the Wisconsin

Educational Approval Board, which oversees the

state’s degree-granting for-profit colleges, has the

same staffing levels as 10 years ago, although the

number of institutions under its jurisdiction has

increased from 100 to over 200 today.64 In New York,

the Bureau of Proprietary School Supervision—which

oversees non-degree granting for-profit colleges—has

cut its staff from 40 in the 1990s to 20 today. The

bureau oversees 500 schools and has an additional

100 to 150 applications pending.65

Finally, state agencies charged with for-profit college

oversight may have multiple responsibilities across

state government, which could lead to neglect or

dilution of the state’s oversight function.66 Some

agencies oversee for-profit colleges as well as other

educational entities, such as out-of-state institutions.

Other agencies have responsibilities spanning across

state government. For example, the Texas Workforce

Commission oversees state for-profit colleges but

is also instrumental in workforce development,

providing support services for people in workforce

transitions and administering unemployment and tax

benefits.67

Conflicts of Interest. There are concerns over possible

conflicts of interest with industry officials who sit

on state boards charged with overseeing for-profit

colleges. Some states allow the industry to dominate

the board. In Florida, the state’s seven-person

Commission for Independent Education has four for-

profit college industry representatives.68 Kentucky’s

11-member Proprietary Education Board currently

has six industry representatives, with industry

representatives allowed to chair the board.69

There are ongoing reform efforts aimed at bolstering

the state’s oversight function.

The perception of weak or inadequate state

oversight has prompted reform proposals from

the U.S. Department of Education, Council of State

Governments and National Advisory Committee on

Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI). These

rules and regulations will affect all sectors within U.S.

postsecondary education.

State Authorization. The U.S. Department of

Education (ED) issued a three-part “program

integrity” rule in October 2010 seeking to enhance

state regulation of for-profit colleges. Under this rule,

state licensure and approval agencies must maintain

a third-party process to review and address student

complaints. Additionally, they must also provide a

list to ED, upon request, of institutions approved

to operate in the state. Finally, agencies will need

to approve institutions to operate in their state

according to their own regulations.70 This provision

reinforces existing state laws and clarifies state

authorization for Title IV eligibility.71

The provision also requires institutions to provide

enrolled students—and prospective students—with

information about how to file a complaint with the

appropriate accrediting body and state agency.

12 / April 2012 • AASCU Policy Matters

Institutions will also need to comply with state

approval and authorization requirements in every

state in which they operate and be approved in the

state. However, this provision has been vacated by

federal courts and is currently in the appeals process.

A ruling is expected to be released in summer 2012.72

State laws will not be altered by the court’s ruling,

but rather only the federal government’s enforcement

capability.73

Reciprocity Agreements. There is an effort to build

reciprocal agreements between states in order to

ease regulatory compliance costs. The Presidents’

Forum, with assistance from the Council of State

Governments and support from the Lumina

Foundation for Education, are currently building

a framework for creating reciprocal agreements

between states. A draft of the interstate compact is

expected in spring 2012, with a goal of states taking

up the compact in their 2013 legislative sessions.74

Federal Regulatory Advisory Board

Recommendations. The National Advisory Committee

for Institutional Quality and Integrity, which advises

the U.S. Department of Education on accreditation

and regulatory matters, has outlined a series of

recommendations aimed at improving oversight

to be included in the reauthorization of the Higher

Education Act (HEA).75 NACIQI outlined the following

general recommendations for the regulatory triad:

• Clarify responsibilities of each of the three

regulatory entities;

• Increase communication among the three

regulatory bodies; and

• Support state engagement in consumer protection,

whether within or outside of accreditation.

Specifically for states, NACIQI has called for

improvement of the state’s consumer protection

function without hindering cross-border distance

learning. NACIQI recommendations include:

• Determining the mechanisms that will best ensure

that quality assurance and eligibility expectations

are met across institutions and agencies;

• Using the federal government’s convening

capability to develop models of triad articulation

and greater engagement and consistency across

states;

• Assessing whether the assortment of regulation can

be shaped to incorporate cross-border educational

activity; and

• Supporting state efforts to ensure the adequacy

of consumer information and the accountability

of institutions and programs providing education

within the state. States could develop “best

practices,” as well as a common understanding of a

minimum level of consumer protection.76

Lawmakers in some states are proposing changes to

state oversight of for-profit colleges.

Some states have responded to calls to bolster state

oversight. According to the National Conference of

State Legislatures, at least 17 states have introduced

37 bills related to for-profit colleges in the 2011-2012

legislative session.

Kentucky. Kentucky lawmakers have passed House

Bill 308, which would discontinue the state’s Board on

Proprietary Education and create a new agency, the

Kentucky Commission on Proprietary Education. The

new commission would not be majority-controlled by

for-profit industry officials; would not have authority

over the student complaints process; and would

include a student compensation fund to reimburse

students if their school closes. The bill has passed

both houses of the Kentucky Legislature and is

currently on the desk of Gov. Steve Beshear (D).

Georgia. Georgia lawmakers have approved House Bill

792, a proposal that would allow institutions to apply

for authorization by means of accreditation. To be

13 / April 2012 • AASCU Policy Matters

eligible, institutions would have to have operated in

the state for the last ten years, hold accreditation and

have no unresolved complaints or actions against it in

the last 12 months. The bill passed both houses of the

Georgia Legislature and is awaiting further action.

In the last year, a number of notable pieces of

legislation in this policy area were signed into law.

California. California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signed

Senate Bill 70 into law in March 2011, which uses

student loan default rates to determine eligibility

for the state’s Cal Grants financial aid program.

The legislation also requires annual reporting on

enrollment, persistence and graduation data for all

students. Since the bill was signed, nearly half of the

for-profit colleges in the state have been barred from

offering students a Cal Grant.77

Maryland. Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) signed

Senate Bill 695 into law in May 2011, which revamped

the state’s for-profit college regulations. The law

prohibits deceptive recruiting practices, bans

incentives or bonuses for recruiters and requires

greater data disclosure. The bill also establishes a for-

profit college-funded student protection fund.

Mississippi. Former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour

(R) signed House Bill 838 in March 2011, which allows

private business and vocational schools to submit

evidence of national accreditation in lieu of other

state application requests.

North Carolina. North Carolina Gov. Beverly Perdue

(D) signed Senate Bill 685 into law in June 2011, which

created a new State Board of Proprietary Schools

to oversee for-profit institutions that offer associate

degree and certificate programs. Previously, this duty

was performed by the state’s community college

board. The new law will award four of the board’s

seven seats to for-profit industry officials.

Utah. Utah Gov. Gary Herbert (R) signed Senate Bill

210 into law in March 2011, which brought the state

into compliance with federal rules and regulations.

The new law empowers the state’s Division of

Consumer Protection to act against complaints

directed toward for-profit colleges. The legislation

requires that new school operators obtain commercial

and consumer credit reports, and schools operating

for more than a year must submit audited financial

statements. Schools may seek exemptions from

state rules if they are accredited. For-profit industry

officials applauded the measure.78

West Virginia. West Virginia Gov. Earl Ray Tromblin

(D) signed Senate Bill 375 in April 2011, which

mandates that degree-granting schools in the

state disclose specified consumer information. This

includes all required state and federal information;

performance measures deemed necessary (such

as graduation and retention rates); a detailed

explanation of financial operations; an assessment

of the institution’s curriculum, facilities, materials

and equipment; and on-site reviews of academic

standards.

Conclusion

For-profit college growth over the last decade has

led to increased scrutiny of the industry’s practices,

policies and performance. While many for-profit

colleges make constructive contributions to the

health and well-being of students and communities,

several high-profile investigations and lawsuits have

revealed troubling instances of fraud and abuse that

could taint the entire industry and devalue for-profit

college credentials. Further, student debt and default

levels are spiraling to new, often unsustainable levels.

In response to these issues, state policymakers,

in coordination with accrediting bodies and the

federal government, must work together to find new

approaches that guard students and taxpayers from

fraud and abuse while not hindering entrepreneurial

activity in postsecondary education. Policies in

statehouses and in Washington, D.C. will be crucial

in determining whether this industry is ultimately

an engine of innovation and opportunity or another

sad chapter of taxpayer-funded waste, unrealized

expectations and false promises.

14 / April 2012 • AASCU Policy Matters

Endnotes1Stephanie Riegg Cellini and Claudia Goldin, “Does Federal

Student Aid Raise Tuition? New evidence on For-Profit Col-

leges,” The National Bureau of Economic Research Working

Paper No. 17827 (2012): 2. http://www.nber.org/papers/

w17827.pdf

2Richard S. Ruch, Higher Ed, Inc: The Rise of the For-Profit University, (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press,

2001): 57-60.

3James Coleman and Richard Vedder, “For-Profit Education in

the USA: A Primer,” In Doing More with Less: Making Colleges Work Better, edited by Joshua C. Hall, (New York: Springer,

2010): 160.

4David J. Deming, Claudia Goldin, and Lawrence F. Katz, “The

For-Profit Postsecondary School Sector: Nimble Critters or

Agile Predators?” Center for the Analysis of Postsecondary

Education and Employment (2012): 3. http://capseecenter.

org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/ForProfit_Nimble-Crit-

ters_Feb-2012.pdf.

5Daniel L. Bennett, Adam R. Lucchesi and Richard K. Ved-

der, “For-Profit Higher Education: Growth, Innovation and

Regulation.” Center for College Affordability and Productivity

(2010): 15. http://www.centerforcollegeaffordability.org/

uploads/ForProfit_HigherEd.pdf.

6L.G. Knapp, J.E. Kelly-Reid and S.A. Ginder, “Enrollment in

Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2007; Graduation Rates,

2001 & 2004 Cohorts; and Financial Statistics, Fiscal Year

2007,” U.S. Department of Education (2009): 5. http://nces.

ed.gov/pubs2009/2009155.pdf.

7L.G. Knapp, J.E. Kelly and S.A. Ginder, “Enrollment in Postsec-

ondary Institutions, Fall 2010; Financial Statistics, Fiscal Year

2010; and Graduation Rates, Selected Cohorts, 2002-07,”

U.S. Department of Education (2012): 7. http://nces.ed.gov/

pubs2012/2012280.pdf.

8L.G. Knapp, et.al “Enrollment in Postsecondary Institutions,

Fall 2000 and Financial Statistics, Fiscal Year 2000,” U.S.

Department of Education (2002): 15. http://nces.ed.gov/

pubs2002/2002212.pdf.

9L.G. Knapp, J.E. Kelly and S.A. Ginder, “Enrollment in Postsec-

ondary Institutions, Fall 2010,” 7.

10Cellini and Goldin, “Does Federal Student Aid Raise Tuition?”

2.

11Deming, Goldin and Katz, “Nimble Critters,” 4.

12Ibid.

13“IPEDS Data Center Fall 2010 Statistics: University of Phoenix

Online Campus,” National Center for Education Statistics,

http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/ (accessed April 8, 2012).

14Ruch, Higher Ed. Inc, 95-96.

15Steven M. Jung, “Accreditation and Student Consumer Protec-

tion,” The Council on Postsecondary Education, (1979): 8.

http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED175357.pdf.

16Hollister K. Petraeus, “For-Profit Colleges, Vulnerable G.I.’s,”

The New York Times, September 21, 2011, http://www.ny-

times.com/2011/09/22/opinion/for-profit-colleges-vulner-

able-gis.html.

17“Benefitting Whom? For-Profit Education Companies and

the Growth of Military Educational Benefits,” United States Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pen-

sions (2010): 2. http://harkin.senate.gov/documents/

pdf/4eb02b5a4610f.pdf

18“For-Profit Colleges: Undercover Testing Finds Colleges

Encouraged Fraud and Engaged in Deceptive and Ques-

tionable Marketing Practices,” United States Government

Accountability Office (2010): 7-13. http://www.gao.gov/as-

sets/130/125197.pdf.

19Coalition for Education Success, “Significantly Revised Report

on For-Profit Colleges Seriously Undermines Credibility of

GAO Findings,” Businesswire.com, December 8, 2010, http://

www.businesswire.com/news/home/20101207007334/

en/Coalition-Educational-Success-Significantly-Revised-

Report-For-Profit.

20Naima Ramos-Chapman, “Richard Cordray Talks Student

Lending, For-Profit Colleges,” Campus Progress, March 12,

2012, http://campusprogress.org/articles/richard_cordray_

talks_student_lending_for-profit_colleges_with_cam-

pus_progr/.

21Hollister K. Petraeus, “Remarks by Hollister K. Petraeus at

For-Profit College Forum,” Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, January 23, 2012, http://www.consumerfinance.gov/

speeches/remarks-by-hollister-k-petraeus-at-for-profit-

college-forum/.

22Tamar Lewin, “For-Profit College Group Sued as U.S. Lays Out

Wide Fraud,” The New York Times, August 8, 2011, http://

www.nytimes.com/2011/08/09/education/09forprofit.html.

23Rich Lord, EDMC Defends Its Recruiter Compensation in Fil-

ing,” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, February 6, 2012, http://www.

post-gazette.com/pg/12037/1208493-100.stm.

24Diane Smith, “Texas For-Profit College Accused of Fraud in

Whistle-Blower Suit,” Fort Worth Star-Telegram, March 5,

2012. http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/03/05/3786218/

texas-for-profit-college-accused.html.

25Paul Fain, “Kentucky Showdown,” Inside Higher Ed, November

3, 2011, http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/11/03/

ky-attorney-general-jack-conway-battles-profits

26“State attorneys general investigating for-profit colleges,” Cal-

ifornia Watch, February 6, 2012, http://californiawatch.org/

data/state-attorneys-general-investigating-profit-colleges.

15 / April 2012 • AASCU Policy Matters

27Mike Wynn, “Jack Conway alleges Daymar College over-

charged for books, misled students,” The Courier-Journal,

July 28, 2011, http://www.courier-journal.com/arti-

cle/20110727/NEWS01/307270093/Jack-Conway-alleges-

Daymar-College-overcharged-books-misled-students.

28Jack Brammer, “Attorney General Jack Conway sues National

College of Kentucky,” Lexington Herald-Leader, September

28, 2011, http://www.kentucky.com/2011/09/27/1899595/

attorney-general-jack-conway-sues.html.

29Gregory Karp, “Illinois Attorney General’s Office Plans to

Sue Westwood College,” Chicago Tribune, January 18, 2012,

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-01-18/business/

ct-biz-0118-westwood-20120118_1_illinois-attorney-office-

plans-westwood-college.

30Martin Smith, “College, Inc.” PBS Frontline, July 2010, http://

www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/collegeinc/view/

31Daniel Goldin, “The Homeless at College,” Bloomberg Busi-

nessweek, April 30, 2010, http://www.businessweek.com/

magazine/content/10_19/b4177064219731.htm

32Byron Harris, “False job records at for-profit Arlington

school,” WFAA.com, October 19, 2010, http://www.wfaa.

com/news/local/False-Job-Records-At-For-Profit-

School-105228983.html

33Byron Harris, “Bitter lessons for trade school graduates,”

WFAA.com, October 29, 2010. http://www.wfaa.com/news/

investigates/Bitter-Lessons-106350718.html.

34“Texas Revokes Approval for 22 Career School Programs, Of-

fers Refund,” KWTX.com, August 9, 2011, http://www.kwtx.

com/home/headlines/Career_School_In_Danger_Of_Clos-

ing_Reaches_Agreement_With_State_127286923.html.

35Deming, Goldin and Katz, “Nimble Critters,” 22.

36Nicholas Turner, “Do Students Profit from For-Profit Educa-

tion? Estimating the Returns to Postsecondary Education

with Tax Data,” Unpublished working paper, (2011): 29. http://

www.nber.org/public_html/confer/2011/PEf11/Turner.pdf.

37Stephanie Riegg Cellini and Latika Chaudhary, “The Labor

Market Returns to a Private, Two-Year College Education,”

manuscript, The George Washington University (2011): 28-

29. http://home.gwu.edu/~scellini/Index/Research_files/

Cellini%26Chaudhary_Returns_April11.pdf.

38“Trends in College Pricing 2011,” The College Board Advocacy

and Policy Center, (2011): 10. http://trends.collegeboard.org/

downloads/College_Pricing_2011.pdf.

39Sandy Baum and Kathleen Payea, “Trends in For-Profit Post-

secondary Education: Enrollment, Prices, Student Aid and

Outcomes,” The College Board (2011): 4. http://advocacy.

collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/11b_3376_Trends_

Brief_4Pass_110414.pdf.

40Sandy Baum, “Testimony to the U.S. Senate Health, Educa-

tion, Labor and Pensions Committee,” United States Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (2011):

2-4. http://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Baum.pdf

41Ibid.

42U.S. Department of Education, Institutional Category Default

Rates, (Washington, D.C.: 2011), http://ifap.ed.gov/ean-

nouncements/attachments/CDRlifetimerate2011attach2.

pdf

43Ibid.

44Louis W. Bender, “States and Accreditation,” in Kenneth E.

Young, Charles M. Chambers, H.R. Kells and Associates,

Understanding Accreditation (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Publishers, 1983): 284.

45Mark L. Pelesh, “Markets, Regulation and Performance in

Higher Education,” in Guilbert C. Hentschke, Vicente M.

Lechuga and William G. Tierney, For-Profit Colleges and Uni-versities: Their Markets, Regulation, Performance and Place in Higher Education (Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, 2010): 92.

46Deanne Loonin and Jillian McLaughlin, “State Inaction: Gaps

in State Oversight of For-Profit Higher Education,” National

Consumer Law Center, (2011): 9. http://www.nclc.org/imag-

es/pdf/pr-reports/state-inaction-for-profit-higher-edu.pdf.

47Kevin Carey, “Asleep at the Seal: Just how bad does a col-

lege have to be to lose accreditation?” Washington Monthly,

March/April 2010, http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/fea-

tures/2010/1003.carey.html.

48Alan Contreras, “The Legal Basis for Degree-Granting Author-

ity in the United States,” State Higher Education Executives

Officers, (2009): 13. http://www.sheeo.org/govern/Contre-

ras2009-10-LegalDegreeGranting.pdf.

49Alan Contreras, email to author, March 24, 2012.

50“The Methods and Effectiveness of State Licensing of Propri-

etary Institutions,” State Higher Education Executive Officers

(1991): 5. http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED337111.pdf.

51Ibid.

52Ibid.

53Ibid.

54Contreras, “The Legal Basis,” 13.

55State Higher Education Executive Officers, “The Methods and

Effectiveness of State Licensing,” 61.

56“State Licensure versus Accreditation of Proprietary Schools

and Colleges: A Review of Comparison of Roles and Func-

tions,” California Postsecondary Education Commission

(2004),: 1-7. http://www.cpec.ca.gov/completereports/200

4reports/04-03.pdf.

57Barmak Nassirian, “Improving For-Profit Higher Education: A

Roundtable Discussion of Policy Solutions-Statement of Bar-

mak Nassirian,” United States Senate Committee on Health,

Education, Labor and Pensions (2011), http://www.help.sen-

ate.gov/imo/media/doc/Nassirian.pdf.

58Cheryl Truman, “State auditor criticizes board that oversees

for-profit education,” Lexington Herald-Leader, April 21, 2011,

http://www.kentucky.com/2011/04/21/1714123/state-audi-

tor-criticizes-board.html.

59Scott Travis, “Audit: Florida board lax in overseeing for-profit

colleges,” Florida Sun Sentinel, May 1, 2011, http://articles.

sun-sentinel.com/2011-05-01/news/fl-audit-commission-

for-profit-20110428_1_state-auditor-complaints-colleges.

60Contreras, “The Legal Basis,” 17.

61“41st Annual Survey: 2009-10 Academic Year,” National Asso-

ciation of Student State Grant & Aid Programs (2011), http://

inpathways.net/NASSGAP_Report_0910.pdf.

62State Higher Education Executive Officers, “The Methods and

Effectiveness of State Licensing,” 32.

63Loonin and McLaughlin, “State Inaction,” 5.

64David Dies, email to author, March 21, 2012.

65Benjamin Lesser and Greg B. Smith, “As complaints mount,

anemic state agency overwhelmed by job of policing for-

profit schools,” New York Daily News, January 18, 2011, http://

www.nydailynews.com/new-york/complaints-mount-ane-

mic-state-agency-overwhelmed-job-policing-for-profit-

schools-article-1.149897.

66Loonin and McLaughlin, “State Inaction,” 5.

67“About the Texas Workforce Commission,” Texas Workforce

Commission, September 30, 2011, http://www.twc.state.

tx.us/twcinfo/about-texas-workforce.html.

68Scott Travis, “Audit: Florida board lax in overseeing for-profit

colleges,” South Florida Sun Sentinel, May 1, 2011, http://

articles.sun-sentinel.com/2011-05-01/news/fl-audit-com-

mission-for-profit-20110428_1_state-auditor-complaints-

colleges.

69Ronnie Ellis, “For-profit schools to get closer scrutiny,” CNHI

News Services, December 10, 2010, http://themorehead-

news.com/local/x1853593664/For-profit-schools-to-get-

closer-scrutiny.

70“2010 Federal Regulations on State Approval of Out-of-State

Providers,” WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies,

March 2012, http://wcet.wiche.edu/advance/state-approv-

al/.

71Alan Contreras, email to author, March 24, 2012.

72“2010 Federal Regulations on State Approval of Out-of-State

Providers.”

73Alan Contreras, email to author, March 24, 2012.

74“2010 Federal Regulations on State Approval of Out-of-State

Providers.”

75“NACIQI Draft Report: Higher Education Reauthorization

Policy Recommendations,” National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI), February 8, 2012,

http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/naciqi-dir/na-

ciqi_draft_final_report.pdf.

76Ibid.

77Nanette Asimov, “Some for-profit colleges booted from Cal

Grants,” San Francisco Chronicle, February 6, 2012, http://

www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/05/

BAU11N1V83.DTL.

78Brian Maffly, “Bill would tighten oversight of some for-profit

schools,” Salt Lake Tribune, February 23, 2011, http://www.

sltrib.com/sltrib/home/51297503-76/schools-bill-profit-

utah.html.csp.

Contact:Thomas L. Harnisch, Policy Analyst

harnischt@aascu.org • ph 202.478.4660 • aascu.org/policy